Conventional wisdom seems to be that Obama and McCain will win New Hampshire. Seems right to me.
Every time I read about McCain on the campaign trail I like him that much more. (Except when he's belligerent about something he's also dead wrong about, which comes up now and then.)
HRC getting all teary: Move on, nothing to see. Avert your eyes if necessary.
There's a blatantly obvious choice for Obama's running mate, should he go on to win the nomination. It's so obvious that I just now checked to confirm that the 22nd amendment wouldn't preclude it. (No, nobody currently running for president, nor married to same.) I also checked various URLs that, predictably, are already taken and parked.
Is it strange that Ron Paul is the GOP candidate about whom I have the least strong opinion either way? The six viable Republican candidates include three whom I like, two whom I dearly hope don't get the nomination (Huckabee, Romney*), and then Paul. He combines so many things that I strongly like or strongly dislike, but they all get canceled out -- and he'd get slaughtered in November (about which I'm surprisingly apathetic).
*- Romney had a golden opportunity to be exactly who I'd most fervently support. But I hate 90% of how he runs his campaign, including that he's somehow managed to be both a stereotypical politician and a stereotypical Republican. Aside from military heroics**, Romney is the candidate whose pre-political career impresses me most. On paper all he had to do was be himself, yet apparently someone told him to do just the opposite and he was too weak a person to resist.
**- refers specifically to McCain, and what he went through as a POW. It's an apples to oranges comparison, though. And honestly, I'm not so impressed by what (if anything) McCain did after being a pilot but before holding office.
Posted by Matt Bruce at January 7, 2008 06:22 PMThere's a blatantly obvious choice for Obama's running mate
Always a bridesmaid, but never a bride?
Posted by: Kubi at January 7, 2008 10:38 PMMcCain's belligerence is one thing, but he's developed a pretty extensive record of being extremely wrong about things I happen to care about a great deal.
I can understand being against Romney because he's a squish or a Massachusetts-brand flip-flopper, but "I don't want him to get the nomination because I don't like the way he runs his campaign" doesn't do it for me. If it's because you'd like a person with his credentials and ideas in the White House but are worried he'd get stomped by a savvier campaign across the aisle, then maybe I'm with you. But should he get the nomination in the first place, it would likely be because he's figured out how to run.
As it were, the pundits seem to think a loss in NH and it's over for him, which is too bad. Wouldn't it be just grand if, like, even *one* of the early, mega-important, state-delegate-assigning-thingies was run like a "normal", vote-based, party-based event?
Posted by: ZD at January 8, 2008 10:46 AMHaving lived through the Romney administration, I think you are seeing him being himself.
Posted by: Mark at January 8, 2008 01:25 PM